Opinion
06-22-00082-CR
07-28-2022
RANDALL GREENOUGH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Date Submitted: July 27, 2022
On Appeal from the 402nd District Court Wood County, Texas Trial Court No. 23,426-2017
Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice
Randall Greenough was convicted of indecency with a child by sexual contact in January 2018. On direct appeal to this Court, this Court affirmed Greenough's conviction. See Greenough v. State, No. 06-18-00024-CR, 2018 WL 3404298, at *1 (Tex. App.-Texarkana July 13, 2018, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Beginning in 2019, Greenough began filing a barrage of motions in both the trial court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking (1) to have the record in this matter unsealed, (2) a free copy of the appellate record, and (3) leave to inspect the evidence and any discovery materials generated during the trial of this matter. Greenough has filed no less than seven motions relating to those issues since 2019. On August 3, 2021, the trial court entered an order unsealing the record but also ordering that the clerk and the court reporter redact any confidential information from the record before providing it to anyone. The trial court then denied the remainder of Greenough's motions.
Specific to this appeal, the trial court, on May 9, 2022, denied Greenough's "Motion for Discovery and Inspection of Evidence Under the Authority of Article 29.14 C.C.P." and, on May 16, 2022, denied Greenough's "Motion for Transcripts and Clerk's Records in Indigent Post-Conviction Proceedings." It is the denial of those two motions that Greenough now attempts to appeal.
In Texas, a party may appeal only when the Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal. Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); see Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law."). When the Legislature passes legislation granting a right of appeal, in addition to granting its citizens that substantive right, it also grants the appellate courts of this State jurisdiction to hear such appeals. In the absence of such authorizing legislation, appellate courts are without jurisdiction and have no authority to act.
In the criminal context, the Texas Legislature has authorized appeals from written final judgments and a limited number of interlocutory orders. See Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The trial court's May 9 order denying Greenough's "Motion for Discovery and Inspection of Evidence Under the Authority of Article 29.14 C.C.P." and the trial court's May 16 order denying Greenough's "Motion for Transcripts and Clerk's Records in Indigent Post-Conviction Proceedings" do not appear to be orders from which the Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal. In the absence of such authorization, we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
By letter dated June 21, 2022, we notified Greenough of these jurisdictional issues and afforded him an opportunity to respond. Greenough did not file a response.
Because there is no appealable order in the appellate record, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Consequently, we dismiss Greenough's appeal for want of jurisdiction.